Fair point, but whom to and for what? Don't forget, planning condition 38 says you can't build houses on it until it is discharged, which means you, or someone else, need to build a new stadium at Newmarket. Getting that planning condition lifted is very hard and would take lots of time, money and effort... not impossible, just money and time. So, while that is happening the BOI have to start and pay money to keep ownership of an empty stadium asset! I reckon rates, security and insurance say £5k a month! How long will they need to pay it for? They were getting a tidy sum of £10k a month for doing sweet FA and now they are shelling out £5k a month... who let that happen the high-ups in the BOI are going to say! A reduced fair rent means they are still getting income from an asset, an empty stadium means it is costing them to keep it and are going to struggle to sell it unless they spend even more money sorting out the issues!

Oh, and the site is probably not worth anywhere near what you might expect, trust me on that one... there is much money to be spent getting that site development ready!

£2.5m pre-recession. Today, at roughly 30k per plot for 80 houses, I reckon 2m would be an appropriate value taking into consideration the run down nature of the area.

It would certainly be an attractive proposition to a high volume developer but as you say the cost in time and expense to discharge the condition could put most off. The lower the value of the land the more likely a developer would take a punt on it.

That of course is assuming there are no hidden skeletons (both figuratively and literally speaking) buried deep under the BV turf!

Quote Slugger McBatt="Slugger McBatt"I appreciate that this might be partly brinksmanship, but of course one potential outcome is that this is our last year at Belle Vue. It was a genuine enquiry about the middle 8's. Although it might not turn out to be the end of Belle Vue as a rugby stadium (and as you have alluded to, the decision behind the serving of six months notice is sound) if it is, two months will be too late for people who might find it difficult to get to Belle Vue on the last fixture but would make an extra effort for the "last game". Or even might want to spend longer there on the last day. So let's say that one of the scenarios is that we leave Belle Vue in six months time, does anyone know when the last game would be, knowing how the middle 8's work? Would hate to be turning up at the Rams stadium next year, for example, because the six months notice had expired and realising that the game against whoever had been the last one at Belle Vue and I'd just mooched out without a second glance.'" No dates as yet but this might help: www.rugbyleaguechampionships.co.uk/rlnewera

Quote Slugger McBatt="Slugger McBatt"I appreciate that this might be partly brinksmanship, but of course one potential outcome is that this is our last year at Belle Vue. It was a genuine enquiry about the middle 8's. Although it might not turn out to be the end of Belle Vue as a rugby stadium (and as you have alluded to, the decision behind the serving of six months notice is sound) if it is, two months will be too late for people who might find it difficult to get to Belle Vue on the last fixture but would make an extra effort for the "last game". Or even might want to spend longer there on the last day. So let's say that one of the scenarios is that we leave Belle Vue in six months time, does anyone know when the last game would be, knowing how the middle 8's work? Would hate to be turning up at the Rams stadium next year, for example, because the six months notice had expired and realising that the game against whoever had been the last one at Belle Vue and I'd just mooched out without a second glance.'" No dates as yet but this might help: www.rugbyleaguechampionships.co.uk/rlnewera

Maybe a developer could find a loophole.

Interesting thought... makes you wonder!

John Pearmans mystery dissapearance solved

A point of interest about condition 38 (though I am not suggesting a legal point) is that it meant that the club could not be forced out and find themselves groundless. A laudable condition. However now we have the prospect of the club voluntarily moving and NOT being groundless. Maybe some wiggle room for BoI etc?

That's my concern.

Would not think so. The condition is clear, Belle Vue cannot be developed until Newmarket is built. The fact that we may not be playing there does not change the fact that we have no home.

The BOI may try to get the condition removed as they have already done but we and Sport England would object again and hopefully the outcome would be the same. Also any application to get the condition removed would be costly.

Does serving notice to quit have any effect on this clause ?

No, it is a planning clause, not a contractual one. To develop Belle Vue for housing, you would need to get it removed, plain and simple. To do that, as Sandal Cat points out, is by no means certain and will be time consuming and costly. Also, and lets be clear here, the club don't want to move, they just want to pay a fairer rental value and that is what they have already offered to do and still hope will happen.

I would be very, very surprised if a new lease deal is not agreed in the coming fee weeks, which will see all getting something out of it, maybe not what they had before, but still better than the alternatives for all parties!

Interesting stuff Armadillo !

That makes it sound as though we are holding the proverbial "royal flush"